Re: Reviving Time Travel (was Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index')

2004-09-30 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 07:11:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > More generally I think that invoking VACUUM processing from the bgwriter > would be a serious violation of the module hierarchy, and would inflict > more pain in the form of bugs and maintenance headaches than it could > possibly be worth.

Re: Reviving Time Travel (was Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index')

2004-09-30 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One idea would be to vacuum the page if it can be determined that the > relation doesn't have indexes. This information is generally not known, ... especially not by the page writer. You can't assume that you have access to the relation descriptor ---

Re: Reviving Time Travel (was Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index')

2004-09-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 04:57:37PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > Heh, I was about to ask for the pages with dead tuples list to be added > to the TODO, but it seems it's already there ('Maintain a map of > recently-expired rows'). One thing that isn't there which I remember > being discussed was ha

Re: Reviving Time Travel (was Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index')

2004-09-30 Thread Jim C. Nasby
To answer Simon's earlier comment about if I was looking to start hacking on PostgreSQL... I'm not. :) I might take a look at the TODO again, but I seem to do a great job of finding things to put on my plate as it is. I am interested in minimizing the impact of vacuum, which is why I brought my ide

Re: Reviving Time Travel (was Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index')

2004-09-28 Thread Simon Riggs
>Hannu Krosing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On P, 2004-09-26 at 09:17, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > ... So, all this append-only writing leads to files with lots of dead > > > tuples, so the vacuum command was added to reclaim space. > > > > Actually, I

Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index'

2004-09-25 Thread Tom Lane
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... So, all this append-only writing leads to files with lots of dead > tuples, so the vacuum command was added to reclaim space. Actually, I believe the original Postgres design envisioned that no tuple would ever be permanently deleted: the idea

Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index'

2004-09-25 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 11:14:53AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > >Jim C. Nasby > > Fair questions. MVCC has been tightly locked into Postgres/SQL for the whole > of its history. There is much written on this and you should search some > more - references are in the manual. Well, not quite it's whol

Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index'

2004-09-25 Thread Simon Riggs
>Jim C. Nasby > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:56:28PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > There are many good ideas out there, yet it is almost impossible to find > > somebody else to implement yours! > > > > The acid test is to try and write it... > > > > Overall, I agree VACUUM could do with some tuning -

Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index'

2004-09-15 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:56:28PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > There are many good ideas out there, yet it is almost impossible to find > somebody else to implement yours! > > The acid test is to try and write it... > > Overall, I agree VACUUM could do with some tuning - and 8.0 has just that. >

Re: [HACKERS] 'TID index'

2004-09-15 Thread Simon Riggs
> Jim C. Nasby wrote > I just had a thought that could potentially greatly improve vacuum > performance. What about some kind of TID (or does vacuum use CID?) > index? This would allow vacuum to visit only the pages it needs to > visit. Actually, I guess TID/CID wouldn't even be involved; the only